[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The GreatViews expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.

WASHINGTON -- For four years, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and his team faced off against administration hawks on one foreign policy issue after another, and usually went down in defeat. These days, his successor, Condoleezza Rice, is pushing nearly identical positions, and almost always winning.

An administration that was criticized in the first term for an assertive, go-it-alone approach has reversed ground again and again, joining multinational efforts to keep nuclear arms from North Korea and Iran, mending ties with Europe, and softening a hard line on the United Nations and International Criminal Court.

"She's clearly trying to accomplish a number of the goals that Powell was going after, until he found himself stymied," said Stewart Patrick, who served in Powell's policy planning office.

A former senior State Department official put it more bluntly: "It's Powell's policy without Powell."

The shifts have surprised many in the foreign policy community, who had expected a different approach from Rice. As President Bush's first-term national security advisor, she was a blunt advocate for the tough White House line.

But Rice's course says a lot about the arc of the administration's foreign policy in the second term.

The new diplomacy of compromise has grown in part from the way in which the continuing burden of Iraq has limited U.S. options. After a post-Sept. 11 period of military action and assertive self-interest, the United States has been obliged to give ground to other countries to solve problems.

Rice's stance also raises intriguing questions about how much her instincts really differ from those of her predecessor. Although her ringing rhetoric suggests she shares the neoconservative view that America must move aggressively to reshape other countries, her deeds over the last nine months hint at an old-fashioned "realist," someone willing to deal with "rogue" governments and settle for less-than-perfect solutions.

The new direction stems partly from the fact that Rice has shifted from a neutral post as national security advisor to a job in which she is more removed from the influence of other powerful administration figures — such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld — while facing daily pressure from foreign leaders, said current and former officials and other experts.

The foreign policy change shouldn't be overstated, experts said.

Despite course adjustments, the Bush team remains highly assertive in its dealings with other countries. In many ways, it remains skeptical of international institutions.

Even so, the change has been undeniable.

The most striking shift to an approach reminiscent of Powell's came three weeks ago, when Rice's envoy to the talks on the North Korean nuclear issue joined a tentative deal that promised the government of Kim Jong Il energy aid, light-water nuclear reactors and security guarantees if it forswore nuclear weapons.

Powell's State Department wanted the kind of engagement with the North Koreans that led to last month's deal. But the more hawkish officials who dominated in Bush's first term hoped they could force an agreement from the Pyongyang government without concessions, and allowed the State Department officials only limited contacts.

In 2002, when Assistant Secretary of State James A. Kelly wanted to try to open a discussion with North Korea, other senior officials decided that he could travel to Pyongyang only in the company of other U.S. aides, who would keep an eye on him.

"They made sure that there couldn't be anything like the kind of engagement that led to this [new] deal," said one former Powell aide, who declined to be identified.

On the Iran nuclear issue, Powell pushed to have U.S. officials work with European countries. He obtained clearance from the White House to begin working in this way, but only over the objections of others in the administration, who argued that the Europeans would be too conciliatory toward Tehran and that their efforts would yield nothing.

In March, Rice took a significant additional step in this direction by announcing the administration's official support for the efforts of Britain, France and Germany to work out a deal with Iran.

Another important foreign policy shift came in April, when the administration for the first time set aside its strong objections to the International Criminal Court.

Administration officials, led by U.N. Ambassador John R. Bolton, then the State Department's arms control chief, had taken an unyielding line on the court, which was created to judge war crimes and genocide cases. Bolton and other officials argued that the tribunal infringed on U.S. sovereignty and could lead to foreign judges' trying U.S. troops and military and civilian leaders.

But in April, U.S. officials abstained from voting on a U.N. resolution, thus allowing the United Nations to recognize the court's jurisdiction over cases arising from the fighting in Sudan's Darfur region. Powell had recommended an abstention months earlier, former aides noted.

Bush administration officials say policies have changed along with circumstances.

"We're in a different period," said an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity because of his department's policy. "We had to respond militarily after 9/11…. Now the overriding goal is to try to help the Iraqis and Afghans achieve political victories and build new states. There aren't military solutions to either of those problems."

R. Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of State for political affairs, said in an interview that Rice had emphasized from the beginning of her term that she intended to stress diplomacy and international institutions to advance the president's agenda. Burns cited the administration's approach in the North Korea and Iran talks, the International Criminal Court abstention and the U.S. decision at last month's meeting of the U.N. General Assembly to soften ambitious demands for reforming the world body's management.

At the same time, Burns said, "we're prosecuting a war on terrorism with military and intelligence means, and we'll be tough as nails where we have to be."

Some analysts argue that Rice's vigorous effort to further the president's "democracy promotion" campaign in the Middle East lines her up with neoconservatives.

Yet there is a debate over how aggressive that effort has turned out to be.

In June, Rice took a bold step with a speech in Cairo that challenged Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to reform his government.

But when Egypt's Sept. 7 presidential election drew widespread criticism, the Bush administration responded in a muted fashion, pointing out two of the election's shortcomings yet calling it a "landmark" step.

Rice, who calls her approach "practical idealism," has repeatedly called for Saudi Arabia to broaden democratic participation, while emphasizing that it must do so in its own way and at its own pace.

James Dobbins, a former administration envoy now directing Rand Corp.'s International Security and Defense Policy Center, said the democracy promotion effort could not be portrayed as contributing to a new moderation in administration policy.

Yet dealings with individual countries, with the possible exception of Syria and Lebanon, are "being pursued with some degree of pragmatism," he said. "They've been looking for incremental progress rather than dramatic change."

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will hammer out a joint strategy with European powers over how to curb Iran's suspected nuclear arms programs on a trip later this week to France and Britain, a senior State Department official said on Monday.

Washington is working to shore up support for reporting the Islamic republic to the U.N. Security Council after the world body's nuclear watchdog agency agreed to do so but failed to set a deadline for the move that could lead to sanctions.

Rice, who will add the two stops on her return from a trip to Central Asia which begins on Monday, needs to find a way to coax Iran back to the negotiating table where Britain, France and Germany are leading the talks.

Rice, who is expected to be in Paris on Friday and London on the weekend, does not plan to visit Germany because a government has yet to be formed there after a tight election.

The top U.S. diplomat, who speaks frequently with her British and French counterparts by phone and has hosted them in Washington, has not visited the allies' capitals for months.

On her trip, the three nations will also work out how much pressure to exert on nations, especially Russia, that help Iran with its nuclear development. Washington has sent mixed signals on its policy toward nuclear suppliers in recent weeks.

Other priorities in Rice's talks will include Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and political developments in Lebanon, said the U.S. official who asked for anonymity since the European visit had not been formally announced.

She can "hammer out" Iran policy until she is blue in the face, EU is more interested in their short term financial and political gains, than a long term peace and security in the world....why Hitler and Stalin came to power? for the same reason islamist are coming to power; Europe's short sightedness, ignorance, greed, and always thinking it's US's problem not theirs........and when they are defeated and under another regime they beg US for help.

The LA Times op-ed is so rife with factual errors that it's not even worth the time to go through line by line....I posted the National Security Posture of the United States which came out in Sept. 2002

You know what it contains any why I reference this in total rebuttle of the op-ed's premise regarding a "go it alone policy" and the assertions of interagency divisions/rivalry or inability to consult with the president....which is absolutely false reporting.

As for N-Korea, this is what is really going on:

Allies Expected to Terminate KEDO Next Month

Japan, South Korea and the United States are expected next month to finalize a decision to terminate a light-water reactor project in North Korea, the Yonhap News Agency reported yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 7).

South Korea, the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization’s main supporter, has sided with Tokyo and Washington in looking to end the project, the daily Asahi Shimbun quoted Japanese government officials as saying.

“South Korea, which has been negative about the termination of the program, has shifted its policy, as seen in its decision to provide electric energy for the North,” Asahi reported.

As for Iran Cyrus, the multilateral approach with the EU3 has had no positive diplomatic outcome with the IRI, but it has paved the way for international concurrence on the issues, and resulted in the recent IAEA decision to refer the IRI to the UN Sec Council...Rice's meetings will not just "hammer out" a common position at the IAEA meeting in Dec. as the position is already very clearly stated by the EU and US...I believe it is more a strategy session on "next steps" once that IAEA referal has got to the Sec Council, as it is mandated already, the votes are there for it, and unless the IRI does a complete backflip, suspend its nuclear activities and grant total unrestrained access to the IAEA, no negotiations will resume with the EU.

Both the US and EU are sick of the IRI's games, and an 11th hour diplomatic capitulation on the IRI's part won't be taken seriously. It will be simply regarded as another stall tactic.

Folks in the opposition have a long running resentment toward the EU over the years, I understand this, and why....as well as the doubt expressed when the EU started to harden its stance...which is only natural.

But it has, and that's putting a whole new attitude into the diplomacy mix.

So, as it's put in the following, let's not get all "twisted up" by statements in the press that simply seek to place doubt on the process in place.

QUESTION: Change of subject. On Iran. Have you been in touch with anybody from
IAEA or diplomats who may be talking to the delegation that's now in Tehran
about a possible new offer from Iran to allow access to some of its nuclear
sites?

MR. ERELI: No. That's really not -- that's not something that -- well, our
mission in Vienna is obviously in regular contact with the IAEA. I don't know
if it's dealt with that -- the reports that you're referencing. But I would say
simply that really the place to ask or the place to raise these -- pose these
questions are either with the Iranians or with the EU-3 because those are the
two parties that are -- have the ball on this right now.

In other words, the IAEA made clear that it's time for Iran to re-suspend and
resume negotiations. Iran has not yet done that, which is unfortunate, which
the EU-3 wants to see and which the rest of us want to see. The EU-3 has got
the action for the negotiations. They're the ones that are in the best position
to tell you what they may or may not be hearing from the Iranians or where
things will stay with the Iranians -- stand with the Iranians.

As far as we're concerned, we're supportive of the EU-3 initiative. I think the
IAEA wants to see it -- see negotiations resume. That hasn't happened yet and
that's unfortunate.

QUESTION: But this is not an EU-3 delegation. Are you saying that you're not
really paying that close of attention to this delegation?

MR. ERELI: No. I'm saying that, you know, we have regular -- our contacts and
communications with the IAEA are regular and sustained and, you know, as they
make these trips they report back to the IAEA, back to Vienna. And we'll be, I
think part of those consultations, part of those reports, part of those
information sharing, as they do their job and as they follow the procedures
that are set out for them.

QUESTION: It appears that this is not about shutting it down but rather letting
them observe what they may do at this point.

MR. ERELI: I'll let the IAEA speak to it. I don't have anything to add.

QUESTION: Well, but are you precluding any support for any agreement that
Tehran might make with the IAEA regardless of --

MR. ERELI: I'm not aware of -- I mean, if you ask me what's your position on
anything Iran may do with the IAEA, that's an impossible question to answer.

QUESTION: Well, but you've said in the past that you don't want anything done
by the IAEA Board of Governors in North Korea, for instance, to impede upon
negotiations on the six-party talks. Are you saying the same thing about the
EU-3?

MR. ERELI: What we're saying is that the Board of Governors resolutions should
be respected and adhered to by Iran. Those resolutions call for Iran to answer
outstanding questions, which they haven't done, permit access to areas that
they haven't allowed access to, suspend all enrichment-related activity and
resume negotiations. So to the extent that they're cooperating with those
resolutions, that's a good thing, but they're not. So let's not get all twisted
around procedural issues and rhetorical statements. The standard for
measurement are concrete actions and we haven't seen those.

SECRETARY RICE: Good morning. Well, we have our more regular group back
together. We've been missing a few of you. Welcome back to the road. And we're
off to Central Asia, Afghanistan, and then on to Europe, but we can talk about
the European portion at some other time.

------end excerpt-----

Well, there's Official confirmation.....

Blank wrote:
"She can "hammer out" Iran policy until she is blue in the face, EU is more interested in their short term financial and political gains, than a long term peace and security in the world...."

Well, I just don't see that as being reality at this point...A lot has changed in the last few months.

The LA Times op-ed is so rife with factual errors that it's not even worth the time to go through line by line....I posted the National Security Posture of the United States which came out in Sept. 2002

You know what it contains any why I reference this in total rebuttle of the op-ed's premise regarding a "go it alone policy" and the assertions of interagency divisions/rivalry or inability to consult with the president....which is absolutely false reporting.

As for N-Korea, this is what is really going on:

Allies Expected to Terminate KEDO Next Month

Japan, South Korea and the United States are expected next month to finalize a decision to terminate a light-water reactor project in North Korea, the Yonhap News Agency reported yesterday (see GSN, Oct. 7).

South Korea, the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization’s main supporter, has sided with Tokyo and Washington in looking to end the project, the daily Asahi Shimbun quoted Japanese government officials as saying.

“South Korea, which has been negative about the termination of the program, has shifted its policy, as seen in its decision to provide electric energy for the North,” Asahi reported.

As for Iran Cyrus, the multilateral approach with the EU3 has had no positive diplomatic outcome with the IRI, but it has paved the way for international concurrence on the issues, and resulted in the recent IAEA decision to refer the IRI to the UN Sec Council...Rice's meetings will not just "hammer out" a common position at the IAEA meeting in Dec. as the position is already very clearly stated by the EU and US...I believe it is more a strategy session on "next steps" once that IAEA referal has got to the Sec Council, as it is mandated already, the votes are there for it, and unless the IRI does a complete backflip, suspend its nuclear activities and grant total unrestrained access to the IAEA, no negotiations will resume with the EU.

Both the US and EU are sick of the IRI's games, and an 11th hour diplomatic capitulation on the IRI's part won't be taken seriously. It will be simply regarded as another stall tactic.

Folks in the opposition have a long running resentment toward the EU over the years, I understand this, and why....as well as the doubt expressed when the EU started to harden its stance...which is only natural.

But it has, and that's putting a whole new attitude into the diplomacy mix.

So, as it's put in the following, let's not get all "twisted up" by statements in the press that simply seek to place doubt on the process in place.

QUESTION: Change of subject. On Iran. Have you been in touch with anybody from
IAEA or diplomats who may be talking to the delegation that's now in Tehran
about a possible new offer from Iran to allow access to some of its nuclear
sites?

MR. ERELI: No. That's really not -- that's not something that -- well, our
mission in Vienna is obviously in regular contact with the IAEA. I don't know
if it's dealt with that -- the reports that you're referencing. But I would say
simply that really the place to ask or the place to raise these -- pose these
questions are either with the Iranians or with the EU-3 because those are the
two parties that are -- have the ball on this right now.

In other words, the IAEA made clear that it's time for Iran to re-suspend and
resume negotiations. Iran has not yet done that, which is unfortunate, which
the EU-3 wants to see and which the rest of us want to see. The EU-3 has got
the action for the negotiations. They're the ones that are in the best position
to tell you what they may or may not be hearing from the Iranians or where
things will stay with the Iranians -- stand with the Iranians.

As far as we're concerned, we're supportive of the EU-3 initiative. I think the
IAEA wants to see it -- see negotiations resume. That hasn't happened yet and
that's unfortunate.

QUESTION: But this is not an EU-3 delegation. Are you saying that you're not
really paying that close of attention to this delegation?

MR. ERELI: No. I'm saying that, you know, we have regular -- our contacts and
communications with the IAEA are regular and sustained and, you know, as they
make these trips they report back to the IAEA, back to Vienna. And we'll be, I
think part of those consultations, part of those reports, part of those
information sharing, as they do their job and as they follow the procedures
that are set out for them.

QUESTION: It appears that this is not about shutting it down but rather letting
them observe what they may do at this point.

MR. ERELI: I'll let the IAEA speak to it. I don't have anything to add.

QUESTION: Well, but are you precluding any support for any agreement that
Tehran might make with the IAEA regardless of --

MR. ERELI: I'm not aware of -- I mean, if you ask me what's your position on
anything Iran may do with the IAEA, that's an impossible question to answer.

QUESTION: Well, but you've said in the past that you don't want anything done
by the IAEA Board of Governors in North Korea, for instance, to impede upon
negotiations on the six-party talks. Are you saying the same thing about the
EU-3?

MR. ERELI: What we're saying is that the Board of Governors resolutions should
be respected and adhered to by Iran. Those resolutions call for Iran to answer
outstanding questions, which they haven't done, permit access to areas that
they haven't allowed access to, suspend all enrichment-related activity and
resume negotiations. So to the extent that they're cooperating with those
resolutions, that's a good thing, but they're not. So let's not get all twisted
around procedural issues and rhetorical statements. The standard for
measurement are concrete actions and we haven't seen those.

SECRETARY RICE: Good morning. Well, we have our more regular group back
together. We've been missing a few of you. Welcome back to the road. And we're
off to Central Asia, Afghanistan, and then on to Europe, but we can talk about the European portion at some other time.

------end excerpt-----

Well, there's Official confirmation.....

Blank wrote:
"She can "hammer out" Iran policy until she is blue in the face, EU is more interested in their short term financial and political gains, than a long term peace and security in the world...."

Well, I just don't see that as being reality at this point...A lot has changed in the last few months.

Dear Oppenheimer,
Thank you for your informative post and clarification. I am sure you know, sometimes I post article that I don't agree with or an article which create questions in my mind and looking for answer. This is a way that we learn from each other.

Quote:

The LA Times op-ed is so rife with factual errors that it's not even worth the time to go through line by line....I posted the National Security Posture of the United States which came out in Sept. 2002

In the past few years the LA times sometimes acted as pro Islamist regime in Iran.

Quote:

Blank wrote:
"She can "hammer out" Iran policy until she is blue in the face, EU is more interested in their short term financial and political gains, than a long term peace and security in the world...."

Well, I just don't see that as being reality at this point...A lot has changed in the last few months.

As you know many members of ActivistChat don't trust EU untill they see
real action by EU in positive direction and good results.
I agree with you the EU3 is gradually changing their position, and we have reduced our verbal attack on EU3 in past 3 weeks.

Firing Jack Straw by Tony Blair might be a positive step in the right direction for Britain. The following images are not going away very easily from FREE IRAN Activists memory.

----------------------------------------------------

Shame SHAME shame ON Jack Straw Straw's handshake with the "Butcher"

Dears,

The Brits Foreign Secretary, the famous Honorable Mr. Jack Straw is the most shameless, insensitive, clownish Foreign Secretary that the British Government had the pleasure to include in their Cabinet of Ministers since the last few hundred years!

It seems that this Honorable Gentleman has inherited all the characteristics of the Famous British, Jack The Ripper? But He is just a STRAW & does not have Blue Blood in his veins?

You do not believe me! Then read the following! And look at the attached photos.

London, Sep. 10 – A handshake between British Foreign Minister Jack Straw and one of Iran’s new Vice-Presidents on Friday has aroused much anger and indignation among Iranian exiles, who say the official has a long history as a torturer and executioner of political dissidents in Iran.

Esfandiar Rahim Masha'ie, who was recently appointed as a Vice-President and Head of Iran's Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organisation, had two separate meetings with Jack Straw and British Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell while in London for the inaugural ceremony of an Iranian arts exhibition in the British Museum.

The state-run Iranian news agency said that Straw welcomed Iran’s new hard-line government, led by ultra-conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Masha’ie is from the northern Iranian town of Tonekabon, which was called Shahsavar prior to Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution. In 1974, Masha’ie joined the Hojjatieh association. Hojjatieh was a semi-clandestine religious and political group that was set up in the early 1950s in Iran by Sheikh Mahmoud Tavallai, popularly known as Sheikh Halabi, an extremist Shiite cleric who founded the group to eradicate members of the Baha’i faith. Iran’s new President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was also closely associated with the leaders of the group.

In 1979, Masha’ie became a commander in the komitehs, a paramilitary armed organisation charged with law and order after the rise of Islamic clerics to power. He rose rapidly, becoming head of Tonekabon’s komiteh in the same year. He was soon appointed governor of the city and later became Deputy Minister of Mines and Industries. He also served for some time as the Deputy Interior Minister and worked for some time in the Ministry of Islamic Guidance. When Ahmadinejad was the Mayor of Tehran, Masha’ie became his deputy for social affairs.

Critics say throughout his career since the early 1980s, Masha’ie’s has been working for Iran’s secret police, the Ministry of Intelligence and Security.

According to knowledgeable sources, Masha’ie personally executed two of his close relatives: his nephew, Ali Salehi, and his cousin, Ahmad-Reza Rahim Masha’ie. Both were supporters of the Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MeK).

Tonekabon residents say Esfandiar Rahim Masha'ie was known for his brutality against the relatives of dissidents. He once sentenced the father of an opposition activist to four years in prison. At the end of the sentence period, Masha’ie demanded that he continue to remain behind bars since the man had refused to disown his son.

“They called him the Butcher in Tonekabon in the 1980s”, said Saeed Shirkhodai, who fled his native city in northern Iran and now lives in exile in Sweden. “People of Tonekabon, Ramsar, and other nearby cities and towns in western Mazadaran still remember the horrific crimes of Masha’ie”.

Masha’ie’s appointment by Ahmadinejad, who was himself a top commander in Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, follows the same pattern that characterised the selection of new ministers. Ahmadinejad’s cabinet includes about a dozen individuals who were at some stage in their careers officers in the IRGC or its affiliated organs and at least five former senior officials of the Ministry of Intelligence and Security.

Jack Straw’s handshake with a man identified as a killer and torturer of political prisoners has angered many in the Iranian exile community in Europe.

Hamid Solhju, an Iranian exile living in London, said the Foreign Secretary should not have met a man who has a notorious past as an executioner and a torturer.

“Haven’t we had enough? Is there no end to this appeasement”, he said.

Iran’s state-run media have given much coverage to Straw’s meeting with Masha’ie in a bid to counter the perception among ordinary Iranians that the country is becoming increasingly isolated under the new ultra-Islamist government.

Thank you for your informative post and clarification. I am sure you know, sometimes I post article that I don't agree with or an article which create questions in my mind and looking for answer. This is a way that we learn from each other.
-------------------------

I had no problem with you posting the article, it was a lot of fun to blow it out of the water...and I agree with you on the LA times....they often get it wrong...spun out of context and reality...

"Firing Jack Straw by Tony Blair might be a positive step in the right direction for Britain. The following images are not going away very easily from FREE IRAN Activists memory. "

I'm no expert on British law, but I thought Straw was just reelected , or subject to a vote of confidence in his home district last year....I just don't know if Blair can "fire" him like an appointee.

A reasonable question to ask would be if "Jack of Tehran" really knew the full background of the person he was shaking hands with, as he was newly appointed...as I don't read too much into handshakes, and policy in action speaks louder....we'll see if he has a Neville Chamberlain moment or not soon enough.

(sorry Jack, some folks in the US have given you a nickname, as we Yanks are prone to do on occasion)

I know a little something about British cabinet protocol. A minister in the government has the absolute obligation to resign if she/he cannot in conscience follow the government's policy.

With all this apparent dissent I see coming out of Straw's ministry, he must be serving some useful purpose still, or Blair would have sacked him, I would think._________________The Sun Is Rising In The West!Soon It Will Shine on All of Iran!

FoxNews reports today that voting for the Iraqi constitutional referendum has begun.

Iraq's most powerful Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, also weighed in, ordering Shiites to vote "yes" in the referendum, one of his aides, Faisal Thbub, said. It was the most direct show of support for the charter by al-Sistani, whose call brought out huge numbers of voters to back Shiite parties in January elections.
Though the constitutional compromise is being hailed, VOA reports: Some Iraqis Fear Constitution Will Give Power to Iran (via Free Thoughts).

For months, secular Iraqi politicians like Mithal al-Alousi have been warning that Shi'ite Iran is trying to stoke sectarian tension and is aiming to create a breakaway Islamic state in the mostly-Shi'ite southern Iraq.
"I am very sure we have Iranian influence in Basra. We have Iranian influence in Amarah. We have the Iranian intelligence agency. They have control in Basra," he said.

U.S. and British military intelligence officials say they believe Iran is running intelligence-gathering operations in southern Iraq and providing arms and money to several active Islamic groups operating in the region.

The groups are accused of carrying out attacks on coalition forces, imposing Islamic laws by force, and assassinating former members of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party.

The largest of these Islamic groups is the Badr Organization, a Shi'ite militia force of about 20,000 men, trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The Badr group also acts as the armed wing of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), which operated out of Iran for decades during Saddam's rule and is now the largest and the most powerful political party in Iraq.

The head of the SCIRI party, religious cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, has been the leading proponent of a provision in Iraq's draft constitution, which calls for the creation of a Shi'ite mini-state in the oil-rich south.

The federalist arrangement is also supported by members of the Islamic Dawa Party, led by interim Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. Like SCIRI, the Dawa Party has strong ties to Iran. [Emphasis added]

Prime Minister al-Jaafari and the United Iraqi Alliance he leads represents the Shiite majority and dominates the government. Al-Jaafari's own al-Dawaa party has very strong ties to Iran. For that matter, so does Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi who runs energy policy. U.S. intelligence concluded last year that he may have given crucial U.S. intelligence secrets to Tehran. ...
Jaafari's United Iraq Alliance looks to Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani as its political as well as religious mentor. Sistani has been quiet, politic, cautious and shrewd since Saddam was toppled. But two facts about him stand out. He remains a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Iran and in the two and a half years since U.S. forces liberated Baghdad, he has never once officially met any U.S. representatives.

Jaafari's appointment as prime minister was welcomed in Washington as a giant stride toward the goal of establishing a peaceful, stable, constitutional state in Iraq friendly to the United States. But his emergence as the first Shiite national leader of Iraq in its history may also be seen part of a very different process -- the rise of a new, militant, politicized and revolutionary Shiism articulated and shaped by the late Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran.

There is little question that Iran hopes the referendum on the Iraqi constitution will help consolidate the power of Shiites in Iraq after decades of Sunni Arab domination.
Others see more sinister goals.

U.S. officials have accused Iran of secretly backing the Sunni-led insurgency in Iraq to reduce the impact of America's victory there as it tries to strengthen democracy in the region. Tehran has repeatedly said it doesn't see Iraq as a battleground between Iran and the United States.

An Iraqi child looks on as women hold copies of the country's draft constitution in Baghdad

With four-days left before Iraq holds a referendum on a new constitution, some Iraqis are voicing concern that the charter could deepen neighboring Iran's influence in Iraq and provoke a conflict, which could spill over into other countries in the region.

For months, secular Iraqi politicians like Mithal al-Alousi have been warning that Shi'ite Iran is trying to stoke sectarian tension and is aiming to create a breakaway Islamic state in the mostly-Shi'ite southern Iraq.

"I am very sure we have Iranian influence in Basra. We have Iranian influence in Amarah. We have the Iranian intelligence agency. They have control in Basra," he said.

U.S. and British military intelligence officials say they believe Iran is running intelligence-gathering operations

in southern Iraq and providing arms and money to several active Islamic groups operating in the region.

The groups are accused of carrying out attacks on coalition forces, imposing Islamic laws by force, and assassinating former members of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party.

The largest of these Islamic groups is the Badr Organization, a Shi'ite militia force of about 20,000 men, trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The Badr group also acts as the armed wing of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), which operated out of Iran for decades during Saddam's rule and is now the largest and the most powerful political party in Iraq.

The head of the SCIRI party, religious cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, has been the leading proponent of a provision in Iraq's draft constitution, which calls for the creation of a Shi'ite mini-state in the oil-rich south.

The federalist arrangement is also supported by members of the Islamic Dawa Party, led by interim Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. Like SCIRI, the Dawa Party has strong ties to Iran.

The push for federalism by the two Shi'ite entities has raised alarm among Sunni Arabs, who lost power to the country's majority Shi'ites after the fall of Saddam. The Sunnis fear the charter could prompt Iraqi Shi'ites in the south to unite with Iranian Shi'ites to form an oil-rich super region that answers to Tehran instead of Baghdad.

A Sunni Arab businessman in the capital, Yassir Mohammed, says he believes if the constitution passes and Shi'ite Muslims grow stronger, it may cause Sunni radicals like Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to step up their attacks against Shi'ites and ignite a full-scale sectarian war.

"Of course the Arab Sunnis in Iraq are afraid of federalism in the constitution because the Shi'ites will have their own federalism in the south and then the Iranians will have direct interference in Iraq," he said. "I think the constitution should be toward calming and stabilizing the situation in Iraq, and in my opinion, this step will not be helpful."

Even some Iraqi Shi'ites say they are frightened by the prospect of a religious war breaking out as a result of the referendum. Shi'ite merchant Shakir Ali says he believes a war between the Sunnis and Shi'ites will force a response from all the regional powers and set in motion a larger regional conflict.

"Syria, Turkey, Iran," said Mr. Ali. "We have fear from the result (of the referendum) if they cut some pieces of Iraq. We do not like this. I think this is no good."

Last month, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld accused Tehran of being what he termed unhelpful in Iraq. Iran denies it is seeking to expand its influence into Iraq and says it is being blamed for America's failures.

There has been speculation that Iran is sponsoring terrorist insurgency in Iraq to destabilize the Middle East and create doubts about the success of our mission in Iraq. The terrorists predict that as we lose more soldiers in Iraq we will lose hope and want to pull out of the area. In return we would be less likely to commit forces against Iran, giving them the opportunity to move forward on their nuclear objectives.

If Iran is found to be supporting the insurgency, how likely is it that we will act and what actions would we take if the UN Security Council opposes action in Iran?
[Laughter].

SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Colonel, where did you find that fellow? [Laughter]. He's got about six hypothetical questions all linked together there and interacting in a semi-violent way. [Laughter].

Let me say this about that. Number one, it does appear to the world, certainly to the European countries that have been working with Iran or trying to work with Iran, that Iran is on a path towards the development of a nuclear capability. Much to the distress of the IAEA and the European countries that have been attempting to have them move in a different direction.

Second, it is true that we have found weaponry from Iran of recent vintage in Iraq recently. The weapons didn't just walk in there, they were brought in. With what degree of complicity or lack of complicity with the government is something that one can't know with certainty at this stage, but there is a clear concern about the fact that weaponry is coming out of Iran.

Third, there are certainly Iranian intelligence agents in Iraq attempting to affect the nature of the playing field there. The Iraqis are going through a tough time. If you think about it they had the Governing Council, then they had the Interim Government, now the Transitional Government. They're going to have an election -- They had an election to create this government, then they're going to have a referendum on the constitution in four days, and then they will have an election under the new constitution, presuming it passes, December 15th, and if it doesn't pass they will have an election to create a new assembly to create a new constitution on December 15th -- But I do think it will pass.

So the Iraq situation is a difficult one. Democracy is difficult. A lot of politics, a lot of pulling and hauling and arguing and discussing and trying to persuade each other as to what the constitution ought to look like and how they ought to establish their federal system. And if you read our history you know that's exactly what we went through -- big arguments over the power of the states versus the central government and the roles of different elements and aspects of our society. That's what they're doing and it's a tough business. Therefore, they're vulnerable.

And to the extent their neighbors misbehave, as has been the case of Syria and Iran, it's harmful and it creates an uneven playing field as they try to affect it.

What one can be absolutely certain of is that the Iranians do not want a flourishing democracy in Iraq. Their system is to have a handful of clerics control everything that goes on in that country and regulate the role of women and regulate the behavior of everybody and that is not what democracy's about. So clearly they're going to what they can do -- they're trying to do what they can do to prevent a successful democracy in Iraq.

What we are -- You're right. Terrorists have said exactly what you said they've said. The terrorists have announced that they believe that because of their watching the United States over a period of a decade and what we did after various terrorist attacks against our country, that we don't have the stamina, we don't have the staying power, we don't have the will to sustain an effort over a long period of time, and that therefore the battle is not on the ground out there. We're not going to lose any skirmishes, we're not going to lose any battles. We're certainly not going to lose the war in Iraq or Afghanistan or in the world. The only place you could lose the war would be here because it is a test of wills and that is precisely what Osama bin Laden has said. It's precisely what Zawahiri has said. It's precisely what Zarkawi has said. And their goal is not to win. Their goal is to outlast us and the coalition and the rest of the world and the people who believe in freedom and the people who believe that women should have a role in the world, and the people who believe that people ought to be able to get up in the morning and say what they want and go where they want and be what they want and not have their lives regulated and controlled by a handful of people.

I think they're wrong, those folks. I say that. I've been around long enough to watch the rise of communism and the fall of communism, and the rise of fascism and the fall of fascism. If you think of the Cold War. The Cold War was a test of wills. It was not something that was one, two or three years and ended with a surrender on a Battleship Missouri. It's something that required successive governments in multiple free nations, governments of both political parties over time, to be able to sustain an effort that was a sufficiently strong deterrent to dissuade the kinds of aggression that the Soviet empire aspired to, whether in Latin America or Africa or Eastern Europe or Western Europe. And because of that staying power over decades, the forces of freedom prevailed.

So without getting into some of the aspects of your question that I don't want you to think that I didn't know that I'm not getting into them, because I do know that I'm not getting into them -- [Laughter] -- let me say that we're on the side of history and history's on the side of freedom, and that's the side to be on.

---------------

Condi Rice's latest, since Rumsfeld doesn't want folks to think he doesn't know he's not getting into foreign affairs waters, because he knows he's not going to, simply because he knows better than to go diving into areas outside his pervue as Secretary of Defense....

Remarks With French Foreign Minister Douste-Blazy

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
Paris, France
October 14, 2005

FOREIGN MINISTER DOUSTE-BLAZY: (Via interpreter) Ladies and gentlemen, dear
Condoleezza, first of all, I would like to tell you that I am most delighted to
host my friend, Condoleezza, here at the Quai d'Orsay. We have worked a great
deal since our meeting at the Quai d'Orsay a few months ago, first in
Washington when I came to meet Secretary Rice for a long and very fruitful
meeting, and also in Brussels and London.

So first of all, allow me to say that I very much welcome this regular dialogue
that we have and exchange (inaudible) it's very rich, it's very candid and very
fruitful, as should be held between countries that have been friends and
allies, France and the USA. And this precisely because the United States and
France share fundamental values that we must not be afraid of our differences;
quite the opposite. And for France, the United States are a friend and ally, a
partner. Because we are friends we can speak to each other very candidly about
important subjects which show that the American and French know how to work
together on a very concrete subject and therefore it's in the spirit of very
close cooperation that I intend to continue to go the United States on a very
regular basis and I hope that each of my visits will be an opportunity to
further tighten links between France and Washington and bring the Americans and
the French closer together because Franco-American friendship is, above all, a
deep aspiration for two peoples.

And allow me to say to Condoleezza Rice once again how very much the French
people were touched by the catastrophe that happened in the United States
during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and the French people wish to express their
sympathy and solidarity to the American people.

As concerns are talked, well, we talked a great deal, in particular about Iran,
but also about Lebanon, Syria, Iraq -- these subjects. And I can tell you that
there is a continuity in our cooperation and perfect understanding, which
becomes increasingly obvious in particular on these subjects, and I now give
the floor to Condi. And we agreed to take two American questions and two French
questions. Thank you.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you very much, Philippe, and thank you for receiving me
here in Paris. It is very important that we have a continual dialogue. I
appreciate that you had come to the United States. It's good to continue here
in Paris (inaudible) period in international history, particularly in the
Middle East, and we had discussions today of the French-American (inaudible)
that has led to new conditions in Lebanon. France and the United States, of
course, were the co-sponsors of Resolution 1559 but it has the support of the
entire international community. And we talked about how to make certain that it
is fully implemented.

We talked about Iran, where the EU-3 continues to seek to use a diplomatic
solution to the Iranian nuclear issue and where we strongly encourage Iran to
take advantage of that possibility. We discussed the outcome of the most recent
IAEA Board of Governors meetings and the need to use the momentum of the
international community's solidarity about that issue to bring about a
diplomatic solution.

We also discussed the issues of both the Palestinian territories, the need to
support the Palestinians in the post-withdrawal period from Gaza. And as I
understand it, President Chirac will soon see President Mahmoud Abbas;
President Bush will soon see President Mahmoud Abbas; and so support for the
Palestinian Authority as it tries to move toward the development of democratic
institutions and seeking peace with Israel was very much on our minds.

We have many other issues: Iraq, the coming constitutional referendum there.
But principally this is just an opportunity for consultation to make certain
that face to face we have a chance to review where we are and to chart a common
course forward. So thank you very much, Philippe, and we will now take
questions.

FOREIGN MINISTER DOUSTE-BLAZY: Just one word on Iran, as Condoleezza Rice just
mentioned it. I believe that we share views on Iran and I think that together
we must make the Security Council option absolutely credible. And in fact, this
is the work that we were doing the other day at the Board of Governors.

We also must, as Condoleezza Rice has said, we -- it's a possibility of still
believing in negotiation and it is possible to negotiate, let's do it. We
believe that sensitive nuclear activities should be -- must be suspended, and
to do so you have to stand firm and to be strict and you must -- it's also
necessary to avoid declarations which raise the possibility of action outside
the multilateral framework. Therefore, it's important to believe in the agency,
to make the agency credible, but not to be afraid to say that, if necessary,
the prospect of the Security Council does exist. But in the meantime we must
give the impression that Iran, which is a great country, is listening to, is
hearing what we say, but we also have to give a message of showing that we
stand firm.

First question.

QUESTION: A question for Mrs. Rice, Foreign Minister Douste-Blazy. First of all
on Iran, Madame Secretary, you are leaving for Moscow and precisely with
blocking the negotiation, the President is the Russians attitude, they don't
consider conversion activities are an imminent danger. They still want to
preserve all possibility of negotiations, saying that it's enrichment that's a
problem. Do you think that it will be necessary to refer the case to the
Security Council before unanimity is reached?

And for Mr. Douste-Blazy, a question that worries the Europeans at present is
avian flu. You are going to meet with your counterparts in Luxembourg. What
urgent measures are you going to take in the subject because the U.S. are
calling for transparency in this field?

SECRETARY RICE: First of all, let me just add on avian flu, about which you
asked. We also are very concerned. The President has been mobilizing our
pharmaceutical community to try to take on this challenge. Health and Human
Services Secretary Leavitt has been traveling.

We believe firmly that there has to be complete transparency about what is
going on with avian flu. The world should not be caught unaware by a very
dangerous pandemic because countries refuse to share information. And so that
is our very strong concern.

As to Iran, I just wanted to underscore what Philippe just said. We have to
have a very strong message to Iran that, of course, there is always the course
of negotiation. That is what the EU-3 has been trying to do for two years. But
there is also the course of the Security Council. It is a course that is
available to the international community and it is therefore that important
that Iran negotiate in good faith.

It is also the case in speaking with the Russians that I take note of their
concerns about the fuel cycle in Iran. It is evident in the way that they have
structured the Bushehr arrangement with a fuel take-back provision that they
are very concerned about the fuel cycle in the hands of the Iranians.

Look, this isn't an issue -- the issue of rights is not the issue here. The
issue is the confidence of the international community in what Iran would be
doing with its civil nuclear activities given that it has a history of having
violated its obligations and a history now of noncompliance.

FOREIGN MINISTER DOUSTE-BLAZY: Well, I repeat it here, we have a community of
aims with the Americans. It's to avoid (inaudible) over the fuel cycle for
Iran. And to do so, as I've just said, it has to be done through the
multilateral system and the option of the Security Council for the Iranians
must be a sufficient deterrent to convince them to abandon their sensitive
activities but (inaudible) to do so with the Russians and with the Chinese.

Now as to avian flu, I think this is a subject of concern for the world at
large and the Americans as well. So you know the problem avian flu today is
practically -- well, it's very clear for everybody it is the possibility of the
virus mutating. To date, the virus has not mutated. It is not transmissible
from man to man. And therefore, as I say, to reassure in saying that this is
not a virus that has mutated because it hasn't.

Allow me to say as Foreign Minister and standing by Condoleezza Rice that if we
do not want the virus to mutate, we must do everything to prevent it from
mutating. In other words, there will be places in the world, the poorer places,
places in the Southwest and Asia and Africa where, of course, sooner or later,
there will be poultry that will be hit by H5N1. And here we have to be there to
show international solidarity to make sure that in those places as well that
there are public health systems, prevention systems and antiviral systems such
that the virus does not mutate. Because if it does mutate, it mutates for those
regions, for the continents, but for ours as well. Not only is it morally and
ethically scandalous, and furthermore it's absolutely preposterous from the
point of view of global health for all the citizens of the world, and to do so
there will be a meeting in Geneva which is obviously very important which is a
meeting on the 7th and 8th of November at the invitation of the three
multilateral (inaudible) the WHO, the Veterinary World Health Organization and
the FAO, Food Agricultural Organization, so as enablers to mobilize our
assistance for the poorer countries. I'm saying this because we never hear it
said.

And also I wanted to ask the British presidency, and this is what I did
yesterday, asked Jack Straw to organize a general affairs councils for WTO and
for avian flu on Tuesday as you're recalling, as from 10 o'clock we'll have a
discussion on avian flu to know what the international community, what the
European Union, decides to do both as (inaudible) countries of the south,
talking about 150 million Euros, which will have to be donated on a global
scale, perhaps more, in fact. We'll see. And at the same time, how it will be
possible to organize, regulate and harmonize our plans to control avian flu on
a global (inaudible).

QUESTION: Are you confident that the Sunni minority will play the rule of
democracy, the rule of the game on Iraq, and that neighboring Iran won't be a
troubleshooter in the area?

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you. Well, we have always said that Iran is a neighbor of
Iraq; it should behave as a good and transparent neighbor. And I think the one
troubling development is what the British have noted, which is that they are
concerned that there may be technology to support terrorism coming in from
Iran. And I think this is an issue that the international community should
raise and raise clearly with the Iranians.

As to the Sunnis, the Iraqis are dealing with a situation in which Iraq as a
country was essentially drawn on the fault line between Shia and Sunni and with
Kurds thrown into the mix as well. And they are trying to replace what has been
a history of dealing with their differences through violence, oppression,
repression, with a means of dealing with their differences through politics and
compromise. And I think it's extraordinary what they are achieving. They have
even gone further now after the draft constitution to try to accommodate Sunni
interests, to give the possibility of review and amendment of the constitution.
And I would hope that all Iraqis would now see how hard all Iraqis are working
to come to a common future.

There is going to be a long-time, long-scale evolution in Iraq of how the
constitution will be implemented. Much will be determined by the next national
assembly, so the really important election that comes up in December is an
opportunity for all Iraqis to participate in the future evolution of the
constitution.

I think we all know, certainly we in the United States, that the key to the
first constitutional document is to get the institutions in place, to secure
the rights of individuals vis-à-vis the state, and to launch the new political
enterprise on its way. But it is a long process of politics and compromise that
is ahead of them.

I believe that the Sunnis, some of whom now say that they will support this
constitution, are demonstrating that they are ready to really be a part of the
political process. They are registering in large numbers for the elections. I
think that's a very positive sign. And the Iraqis have demonstrated that they
want to live as one Iraq: Sunni, Shia, Kurds and other minorities. It is
outside powers, like Mr. Zarqawi, who seem to want to foment civil war in Iraq.
So let's be very clear on who it is that wants to break up Iraq. It's not the
Iraqis, who have demonstrated that they want to live together.

FOREIGN MINISTER DOUSTE-BLAZY: So still on the same subject, just to say that
on the one hand is the constitutional process which is being created and the
more the political process being created, the better it is. But on the other
hand, the situation which concerns security and the political-social situation
of the country is of concern to us, and therefore it seems important to us to
try and consider something to get them out of the crisis which allows an
inclusive process which can bring together all the components of Iraqi society
so as to have them gathered around a political process once again and so as to
save the unity of Iraq.

Last question.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, is the United States or are the United States and
its European allies considering any new steps to ensure that the Iranians
finally do comply?

And to the Minister, the Iranians have repeatedly been part of the process,
then walked away from it to join it again and walk away. Is there anything that
gives you confidence that the new government's latest pledge to participate in
the talks is actually going to produce anything?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, as you know -- sorry. As you know, we have -- the United
States has supported the EU-3 in its efforts and we continue to support the
EU-3 in its efforts. We hope that the Iranians will return to the table,
discuss with the EU-3 what negotiated solution might be there. But one thing
that is very clear is the Security Council is an option; it is an option that
was put on the table at the most recent meeting. The Iranians are not in
compliance with their obligations. That was a step that was taken. And the
Iranians need to get involved in negotiations and restore the confidence of the
international community that they're not trying to build a nuclear weapons.

The fuel cycle is the core of this problem. The international community has no
reason to trust that Iran would deal responsibly with the fuel cycle.

QUESTION: But nothing -- no new steps are being considered?

SECRETARY RICE: Robin, we are in discussions and I think there will be further
discussions in Moscow. But we're not today talking about new steps. The EU-3 is
in the lead on this negotiation.

FOREIGN MINISTER DOUSTE-BLAZY: In very few words and to add to what you've just
said, I think that no program, civil nuclear program, can justify the fuel
cycle in Iran. That's the problem. The subject is that today, if we stick to
civil nuclear activities or peaceful nuclear activities, there's no reason,
given the partnership with the Russians which the Iranians have, there is
absolutely no need for them to have the fuel cycle. At least that's what we
think and that's what we told them, including we told this to the new
government.

QUESTION: One of your topics here today is Syria. There is a widespread
expectation that the Mehlis report -- this is for both of you -- that the
Mehlis report next week will implicate senior Syrian officials. What are you
talking about doing in that case? A Security Council resolution? Is that
enough?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, Joel, I don't think it helps to get out
ahead of the Mehlis report and try to prejudge what the Mehlis report will say.
This is a prosecutor who rightly is keeping to himself what his findings will
be. He will then report those findings. We will then have an opportunity in the
United Nations and possibly in the Security Council to debate those findings
and to determine what they dictate.

But we have been having discussions about the need to make certain that 1559 is
fully implemented. We have been having discussions about making sure that there
is full cooperation from Syria for the Mehlis investigation. And I don't think
we should try and speculate on what will come out of this, but we will know
soon enough what is in the Mehlis report. What is very clear is that the
international community is demanding of Syria that it fully implement 1559 and
that it not engage in activities that destabilize its Lebanese neighbor.

FOREIGN MINISTER DOUSTE-BLAZY: Our objective is very clear on this matter. It
is sovereignty of Lebanon and therefore we are more than ever determined to
have 1559 and 1595 respected. And the absolute priority on 1595 is to enable
Judge Mehlis to do his job and do his job fully. We absolutely -- we have full
confidence in him that this report requested by the United Nations be -- well,
(inaudible) before the Security Council (inaudible) the consequence. But the
first thing would be to politicize it. It is a criminal investigation which
must be completed and afterwards it must be necessary to give the judiciary
every mean possible to be able to draw a consequence from what Judge Mehlis
says.

LONDON -- US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Sunday gave full backing to Washington’s key ally London over its handling of Iran, accused of developing nuclear weapons and involvement in insurgent attacks on British troops in Iraq.

“The British are doing everything that they can,” regarding Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions, Rice told reporters before heading to a private lunch with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at his country residence Chequers, north of London.

Talks between Iran and Britain, France and Germany (the EU-3) broke down in August, when Iran rejected a deal that offered trade and other incentives for a full cessation of fuel cycle work, the focus of fears that Iran could acquire nuclear weapons.

Rice arrived in London on Saturday from Russia, where Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov clashed with Rice by defending Tehran’s right to enrich uranium for atomic energy.

Iran meanwhile on Sunday said that it would not return to a full freeze of its disputed nuclear activities, but nevertheless voiced confidence it would not face referral to the UN Security Council.

On September 24 the board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) adopted a resolution on Iran’s nuclear programme which while falling short of an immediate call for the issue to be taken to the UN Security Council set out the steps that could lead there.

Since then Tehran has indicated it is willing to resume talks, but reiterated its right to process uranium.

September’s vote “was an opportunity for the Iranians to get back into negotiations to find an acceptable solution that allows them to have a civil nuclear power that does not raise questions”, Rice said on Sunday.

“I am not (going) to set deadlines... At the time of our choosing, we will push for a referral” to the Security Council, she added.

Rice was meanwhile equally supportive over Britain’s accusations that a series of deadly attacks on troops in southern Iraq provided evidence leading back to Iran and the militant group Hezbollah.

“I have every reason to believe that the British are right about this,” the secretary of state told BBC radio.

“I trust the British on this issue because the British are operating in the south (of Iraq). They know the situation there. The British are our allies, I have every confidence in what the British are saying.”

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw later said that London has offered Teheran evidence supporting British government claims that Iran is linked to attacks on British troops in Iraq.

“What we have presented to the Iranians is evidence which, in our judgment, clearly links the improvised explosive devices which have been used against British and other troops, mainly in the south of Iraq, to (militant group) Hezbollah and to Iran,” Straw told reporters in London.

Iran swiftly denied the charge.

Rice meanwhile told reporters that Washington has “tried” to get over a message to Iran regarding the Iraq issue.

The United States does not have an ambassador in Iran, where its interests are represented by Switzerland, while Teheran has a permanent representative at the UN in New York.

“We have channels. We use them rarely, specifically, to deliver messages,” Rice added.

The secretary of state returned to Washington later on Sunday after a week-long official tour that began with a four-nation tour of Central Asia, before moving on to Paris, Moscow and finally London, where she held a working dinner on Saturday with her counterpart Straw.

Tony Blair and Condoleezza Rice emerged from talks at Chequers yesterday determined to deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In a move designed to seal a new level of partnership, Ms Rice also announced that Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, will join her in the United States next week for a three-day tour. Mr Straw and Dr Rice will visit the areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina and also Alabama, where Dr Rice grew up.The trip was planned during a weekend of worsening relations between Iran and the British and American allies.

A senior official in Iran claimed that the US was behind the bombing of a shopping centre in Ahwaz on Saturday that killed four people, and that Britain might have been involved too — a charge Britain denied. Mr Straw, who had dinner with Dr Rice in London on Saturday, yesterday underlined suspicions raised by Mr Blair that Iran had a hand in bomb attacks on British troops in Iraq. Mr Straw said that he had presented forensic evidence to Iran that showed a link between the Hezbollah terror group, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and sophisticated bombs that killed eight British soldiers. “We look to the Iranians to desist from anything they have been involved in in the past and to use their very considerable influence with Hezbollah to ensure that this continued use of Hezbollah technology stops in Iraq,” he said.

Iran’s Ambassador to Britain, Dr Seyed Mohammad Hossein Adeli, denied the charge. “We have already rejected categorically any link between Iran and the incidents that have taken place in Iraq for the British troops,” he said on The World This Weekend on BBC Radio 4.

But Dr Rice said: “I trust the British on this. The British know the situation there.”

It is against this backdrop that Britain and the US have strengthened their resolve to deal with Iran’s nuclear programme. Downing Street said yesterday that the Prime Minister and Dr Rice talked about Iran, affirming “their shared concern about the need for Iran to meet its international obligations”.

Mr Straw sought yesterday to reassure the public that the tactics agreed with the US would be diplomatic rather than military. “Military action in respect of the nuclear dossier is inconceivable,” he said. Almost two years of talks between Iran and the European Union broke down in August when Tehran broke UN seals at the Isfahan plant, where uranium is converted into a gas that can be used to make nuclear reactor fuel or bomb warheads. Iran insisted yesterday that it wanted to return to negotiations but gave no ground on the EU’s demand that it halt all nuclear fuel processing before talks can resume.

Washington and the EU are trying to persuade the governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran to the UN’s Security Council in November for violating international nuclear obligations, a move that could trigger sanctions against the country.

But Dr Rice’s campaign for a hardline approach to Iran met a setback on Saturday, when a trip to Moscow failed to win Russia’s support for referring Iran to the Security Council.

Yesterday Russia denied a report that alleged it had helped to supply Iran with ballistic missile technology that would bring much of Europe within its target range.

The following interviews should place things in context, coming from the original source, and I disagree with some of the charaterizations of circumstance in the articles above.

I believe it is always best in understanding to avoid the middleman, in this case, the press.

Going to the source is often the best way to dispell myth.

On-the-Record Briefing, London, England

Secretary Condoleezza Rice
London, England
October 16, 2005

SECRETARY RICE: Let me just open with a couple of words about the referendum. I
spoke with Ambassador Khalilzad this morning. Obviously, these numbers will
move around as they get more information in, but it appears that the
participation was someplace around 63 or 64 percent. The participation is about
a million more than in January. Obviously, the most dramatic increase is in the
Sunni areas, where in some provinces you've gone from 29 percent to more than
60 percent. In others -- there apparently was an increase in Baghdad. There
appears to be in some places a slight decrease in Kurdish participation, which
is interesting. But overall, the participation numbers are much higher than in
January and the important point is that it's a much broadened base because
Sunni participation is significant at this time.

The referendum, of course, is just a step. We do not have a readout on what the
fate of the referendum actually is. It's probably going to take some time to
get that. But as a matter of political process for the Iraqi people, this is
another really important step forward. They just keep moving inexorably toward
permanent elections in December, when they'll have a permanent government.

And I should also note that, apparently, the violence was down from January
this time, fewer attacks, certainly fewer lethal attacks. And a lot of credit
is being given to the Iraqi army and police for their role in securing the
elections this time.

So with that, I'd be happy to take any questions.

QUESTION: In the past when there have been these political milestone, U.S.
officials have generally said before that it could well help sap the insurgency
of its energy. Do you think these results today will help diminish the
insurgency?

SECRETARY RICE: What it will certainly help to do is to broaden the base of the
political process, those who are casting their lot with the political process,
which means that those who are either sitting on the fence or are supportive
somehow of the violence will diminish. And ultimately, insurgencies have to be
defeated politically. You defeat them by sapping them of their political
support and increasingly Iraqis are throwing their support behind the political
process, not behind violence. So yes, I think over time it will.

But I just want to warn, of course, it doesn't take a lot of people to attack
schoolchildren or to blow up a police station. Over time, as people get better
intelligence and can act more quickly and there are Iraqi forces that can
react, they'll also be able to diminish the violence. But it's not as if the
violence is being committed by a broad swath of Iraqi society; it's being
committed by a few people.

QUESTION: Is there no danger that this will be a one-off thing, that once the
Sunnis see if the constitution is accepted that they will feel that their
interests are not protected and might not feel as much of the part of the
political process? And secondly, do you anticipate that the violence will
remain or increase in the run-up to that next election?

SECRETARY RICE: I have no doubt that the terrorists are going to continue to
try to derail the political process, but they've failed every time they've
tried to derail it. And I'm sure that they'll try to increase the violence. You
know, they attacked the offices of the Islamic Party because the Iraqi Islamic
Party is a Sunni party that agreed to support the constitution. So they clearly
are going to try to continue to derail the process, but they haven't been able
to do it. And that's a defeat for them.

As to how the Sunnis will feel about this outcome -- and again, we don't know
the outcome -- but all indications are that they are preparing to go the next
round, in other words, to try to elect representatives who will have a strong
say in the next assembly. Because given the way that the constitutional process
has played out, many of the decisions about how federalism will be implemented
for regions other than the Kurdish regions, decisions about how to think about
reconciliation of the population, have been left to the next assembly. So
election to the next assembly becomes a really critical issue of how all of
this is going to play out. The constitutional is a foundational document, but a
lot is still to be filled in by the next national assembly, and that's why I
think you'll see people very concentrated on who gets elected.

QUESTION: Although you've said you don't have outcome figures yet, are you
fairly confident at this point that the constitution will actually pass?

SECRETARY RICE: I think that the assessment of people on the ground who are
trying to do the numbers and trying to look at where the votes are coming from
and so forth, there's a belief that it has probably passed. But again, we'll
see. That's the general assessment it has probably passed.

QUESTION: How big a setback would it be in the political development if it
doesn't pass?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, let's just see where it comes out. At this point, I think
people believe it has probably passed. But I think we can't keep moving the bar
for the Iraqis. They had a process under the TAL that told them write a
constitution and then have a referendum. And it's not a setback for the process
if they exercise that right one way or another. It is a process that is alive
and well. That would be as if saying in the United States if you put something
up for referendum and people don't vote for it, well, that's a setback for
democracy. No, that is democracy. But I think that said, I think most people
assume on the ground that it probably has passed.

QUESTION: I want to drag you back to Iran for a second because those of us who
have had no newspapers for two days have to write about it. How does Iranian
behavior in other areas, for example Iraq, affect your calculations on the
nuclear issue? And if the Iranians were willing to engage with the United
States, if the Europeans asked the United States to participate in these talks
more directly to make it a kind of other six-party process, how would the
United States feel about that? Is that an option?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, first of all, I think we are making headway on the
Iranian nuclear issue because the European Union and the United States are now
unified. And I read a number of your stories this morning and they're the same
stories you wrote before the last Board of Governors meeting, that Iran was
going to get away, there wasn't going to be -- and then the Iranians got a vote
that stunned them because, on the one hand, they expected people to stick with
them and they got Venezuela. They got nobody else. This is a long process of
diplomacy, but I think that the Iranians are in a position where they are going
to have to move toward an acceptable solution on their nuclear program in order
to hold any hope of maintaining integration into the international system. And
as I've said time and time again, Iran is not North Korea in terms of its
ability to remain isolated.

Now, as to the role of the United States, we've been supporting the
negotiations. I think that's the proper role for us. We have, if you remember,
when our European allies wanted us to make some steps so that they had, you
know, greater negotiating tools, we did that. And we're listening to them. But
as far as the broad-scale U.S. involvement in these -- in talks, I don't at
this point see that that would be productive. And the -- we have a lot of
issues with Iran, as you noted. Well, they're not just what they're doing with
Iraq, but human rights issues in terms of their own domestic developments and
of course terrorism more broadly, their support for terrorists and the
Palestinian rejectionists and so forth.

And the Iranians, I think, know what it is that they need to do. They're on the
wrong side of so many issues in the Middle East that it would not be hard for
them to come back -- or would not be hard for them to understand what they need
to do to come back.

We have -- let me emphasize, you know, we have had limited contacts with the
Iranians when it is necessary. We have tried to deliver messages to them about
this issue of IEDs in southern Iraq.

QUESTION: How?

SECRETARY RICE: We have channels through which to do it. You know we have a
Swiss channel, we have a New York channel. We have multiple channels. But we
use them sparingly and we use them pretty specifically for -- to deliver
messages.

We have under the auspices of the 6+2 in Afghanistan, Zal Khalilzad used to
have discussions with the Iranians, and I suspect Ron Neumann will do the same.

So it is not as if we aren't able to have contacts with the Iranians when we
need to communicate, but the question of broad-scale engagement with the
Iranians I think just doesn't make sense for us at this time.

QUESTION: You say that we are writing the same story, but actually this morning
the Iranians again said that they are not going to stop the fuel cycle. So we
didn't move actually from the last time. What do you expect to ask the British
this morning to help to go farther?

SECRETARY RICE: The British are doing everything that they can. The British,
the French. You heard the French. The EU-3 absolutely are clear that the IAEA
Board of Governors vote was an opportunity -- last time was an opportunity for
the Iranians to get back into negotiations, which, by the way, the Iranians
walked out of, back into negotiations to find an acceptable solution that
allows them to have civil nuclear power that does not raise questions of the
breakout for a nuclear weapons program. That's really the crux of the matter.

And we'll see where this comes out. We're still, what, almost six weeks from
the November 24th meeting. It's also the case that, as I said, we're not -- I'm
not one, and Jack Straw and I talked about this last night, to set deadlines
because that's not the way that diplomacy works. You look for movement, you
look to see whether or not there are promising solutions and ideas, you look to
see whether there are contacts that seem to be bearing fruit. And at a time of
our choosing, we'll push for referral.

QUESTION: You said last night -- yesterday that you would have an indication
between now and then, November 24th. You seemed to give that framework for
action, yet at the end you backed away from that time frame.

SECRETARY RICE: No, Robin, what I said is --

QUESTION: Is this open-ended?

SECRETARY RICE: No, Robin, what I said is we'll have another meeting on the
24th and that's a sort of natural time to assess where we are. But there is a
lot going on. Intensive discussions are going on not just between us and our
partners, but people are talking to the Iranians, people are talking to the
IAEA. There's a lot of discussion among members of the IAEA. Let's see what
emerges over this next period of time. And I'm just not going to tell people,
gee, on the 24th we all turn into pumpkins, we can't do anything more.

But I do think it's important to recognize that that's going to be a time --
don't you have that expression --

QUESTION: 31st, I was thinking, because of October.

SECRETARY RICE: Oh, I see, I see. Okay. Well, it's also for Thanksgiving.

We're not in a position -- we're in a position where we've got a lot of
consensus about what needs to be done and we just need to keep pressing to get
it done.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you a question about the timing again?

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

QUESTION: The November 24th meeting you've described as crucial.

SECRETARY RICE: Yeah.

QUESTION: In what sense is it crucial if it's not going to be a sort of --

SECRETARY RICE: Because it's the next time that we will have an opportunity to
have assessed what the impact and what the outcome has been of the last
meeting. But I think we'll have a sense of whether or not anything is moving
forward, whether there are ideas that are being pursued, whether contacts are
bearing fruit, whether it makes sense to continue to push diplomacy or whether
it makes sense to go to referral.

QUESTION: But the French said they wanted it to be a credible option at the
Security Council and it seems less credible after what the Russians said, at
least in public.

SECRETARY RICE: What the Russians said is that they still believe this should
be resolved within the IAEA framework. They said that at the time of their
vote. Nothing has changed. But again, the Russians abstained in that vote and
that abstention was a signal to everybody, including perhaps most importantly
to the Iranians, that this is a wait and see. And so everybody is engaged and
active in this period. I wanted to have discussions with the French and with
the British and with the Russians. But you know, Iran was important to our
discussions but we had equally extensive discussions on Syria and Lebanon. In
fact, that was the reason for the extended discussion with Lavrov. So we had a
lot to talk about.

Last question. Warren.

QUESTION: I'm pretty sure my readers out there in the heartland as far as the
referendum, their first question is going to be, "Can we bring the troops home
now?" Obviously, there's not going to be an immediate withdrawal of all
American troops, but do you see at least a review underway now after the
referendum, assuming the constitution passes, a start of the process?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, if you remember, we have a joint commission with the
Iraqis to continually review the state of the Iraqi forces, the state of the
coalition forces, what's needed on the coalition side, what's needed on the
Iraqi side. And so that review is going to continue and it, of course, has a
kind of military training aspects. But it also has to look at the political
conditions and where you are in the political process, so I think that will
continue. But that's been underway, Warren. It's not going to suddenly start
because the referendum is over.

I just want to emphasize again the President's point is that when the Iraqis
are ready, they'll be ready. Our goal is to provide the kind of support for
Iraq that this process plays out with a stable -- a foundation for a stable and
democratic Iraq. Because if we leave prematurely, we will have failed in our --
what our goal is here, which is to have a different kind of Middle East so that
we do not have a terrorist base in the Middle East of the kind that's been
producing these extremists.

I've got to run. Great, okay. See you on the plane.

2005/T15-19

Released on October 16, 2005

************************************************************
See http://www.state.gov/secretary/ for all remarks by the Secretary of State.
************************************************************